Blog @ MoreWhat.com

ABC news calling Hillary Rodham Clinton’s ‘naive and irresponsible’ criticism of Barack Obama her campaign’s first attack on her closest rival may also indicate the first flaws in her campaign. In November 2006 the House and Senate Democratic leadership called for the Bush Administration to hold direct talks with Iran. Both Senator Biden and Senator Dodd, two current Presidential candidates, are quoted as favoring talks with Iran. While the debate discussion between Obama and Clinton specifically addressed whether the talks should be a first year task and Clinton expressed her belief that lower level diplomacy was the initial smart move, calling Obama out for not specifying this proves nothing. Clinton may have sent mixed messages on this topic as the transcript indicates with this quote, ‘And I will use a lot of high-level presidential envoys to test the waters, to feel the way.’ High level, low level, direct or indirect talks are all components of the diplomatic game but the majority of discussions in the press over many months have focused on the Bush Administration’s earlier refusal to talk to ‘evil’ nations on the list of state sponsors of terrorism. Generally the argument against that refusal to talk was one of talk versus no talk and the details were largely ignored.

Is Hillary Rodham Clinton also calling the House and Senate Democratic leadership naive and irresponsible? There seems to be little difference in Barack Obama’s take on talking to Iran and those of Biden and Dodd. Senator Dodd offered this assessment on talking to Iran, “When it comes to protecting our security, we must be as willing to wage diplomacy as we have been willing to wage war,” said Mr. Dodd. “Robust, muscular and direct negotiations are not gifts to our enemies. These are essential tools of avoiding conflict and securing peace and security.” Senator Biden favored the talk approach as well while the Bush Administration held that ceasing development of the nuclear program in Iran was a condition of opening talks. For Clinton to specify a detail not in the original question and then criticize Obama’s answer is bush league. And it represents the suggestion some flaws may be appearing in the Democratic front runner’s armor.

From a NYT’s interview in March 2007, Hillary Rodham Clinton is less specific on Iran. ‘ Certainly, the willingness to engage Iran and Syria could possibly lead to some changes that would be beneficial to the overall structure of the situation we confront. ‘ How’s that for saying nothing? Holding your opponents to higher standards than you do for yourself is not simply unfair but misleading. Is it is okay for Clinton to be vague while criticizing her opponents on details?

More Clinton vagueness was displayed in the March interview. ‘And we’re more than happy to continue to support them. As I said, I wouldn’t do away with a support role for us, I would be more than willing to do that. I certainly, if they are moving in the right direction, I would continue aid, and I would try to get the neighbors to behave and support them.

And if we have a track with Syria and a track with Iran, we might be able to create some momentum for some more stability.’

In a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, Hillary Rodham Clinton expressed a diplomatic approach similar to the one for which she criticizes Obama. ‘ We need to return to patient diplomacy, backed by military strength and informed by American values.’ ……… ‘ The Administration tells Iran and Syria they’re responsible for helping keep the peace but won’t talk with them about how to do it. We continue to deny evident reality, proceeding with few or no allies and precious little direct communication with people who matter. No wonder the American people think that we are adrift.’

And also in the speech Clinton abandons the signature mantra of the Democratic party. ‘ In Iran as well, this Administration outsourced its policy to the British, the French and the Germans. Meanwhile, the Iranian so-called moderates we ignored were pushed out of power and the extremists went merrily forward; now we are left hoping that those same moderates we wouldn’t talk to can regain control. Hope is not a policy. ‘

Clinton had more to say about talking to Iran. ‘ We have to keep all options on the table, including being ready to talk directly to Iranians should the right opportunity present itself. Direct talks, if they do nothing else, lets you assess who’s making the decisions — what their stated and unstated goals might be. ‘

The text of the speech above was found at Hillary Rodham Clinton’s website. So who is naive and irresponsible now? She calls out Obama on foreign relations and diplomacy citing herself as the candidate with the goods to do the job. She also draws attention to her own inconsistencies from previous statements. And she includes nearly her entire party in her criticism based on positions held by Congressional leadership and others. What does this say about the Democratic party and the candidate advertised as the front runner in their offerings for President in 2008? And how does this apply to Pelosi and the trip to Syria, speaking of naive and irresponsible.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, The Random Yak, DeMediacratic Nation, Big Dog’s Weblog, Nuke’s news and views, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, Azamatteroprinciple - A new blog dedicated to fighting pork barrel spending, The Pet Haven, Right Voices, and Conservative Thoughts, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

This entry was posted on Thursday, July 26th, 2007 at 4:00 pm and is filed under Public Affairs, Bush, Terrorism, Iraq, war, wordpress, Politics, campaign, election, Biden, Democrats, Clinton, syria, Afghanistan, United States, Iran, Pelosi, Reid, Foreign Affairs, Dodd. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.